9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused during trial. Analysis: The revision was filed against the order of the trial court dismissing the application for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionist lodged a report against multiple accused who allegedly reached the scene with firearms and injured individuals. The prosecution moved an application to summon the remaining accused based on evidence from witnesses and injury reports. The trial court, however, dismissed the application, considering the defense raised by one of the accused and lack of direct evidence against the others. The High Court noted that the trial judge misinterpreted the law and facts, giving undue weight to the defense of the accused and failing to properly assess the evidence presented. The High Court criticized the trial judge for not applying the law correctly and for relying on judgments without understanding and applying the principles laid down in them. The trial judge cited precedents but failed to properly analyze the evidence before the court and instead focused on the defense of the accused who had not yet appeared in court. The High Court emphasized that the trial judge should have considered the evidence adduced before it and not the defense of absent accused. The High Court also highlighted that the trial judge's reliance on a judgment of the single judge of the court was not in line with the pronouncements of the apex court, which had clarified the applicability of Section 319 Cr.P.C. in cases where accused were named in the FIR but not charged during investigation. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the trial court's order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in light of the correct legal principles established by the apex court. The High Court directed the District & Sessions Judge to ensure proper appreciation of superior court rulings and adherence to legal principles in future cases.
|
